June 30, 2006

For those who still question what Larry Silverstein meant when he said "pull it" when talking about the collapse of the WTC 7, Jeff from PumpItOut.com called demolition experts Controlled Demolition, Inc (CDI) and asked them what "pull it" means in demolition terms. This is what CDI told him:

Female receptionist: Good afternoon, Loizeaux Company.Jeff: Um, sorry, do I -- is this Controlled Demolitions?CDI: Yes it is.Jeff: Ok, I was wondering if there was someone I could talk to briefly -- just ask a question I had?CDI: Well what kind of question?Jeff: Well I just wanted to know what a term meant in demolition terms.CDI: Ok, what type of term?Jeff: Well, if you were in the demolition business and you said the, the term "pull it," I was wondering what exactly that would mean?CDI: "Pull it"?Jeff: Yeah.CDI: Hmm? Hold on a minute.Jeff: Thank you.CDI: Sir?Jeff: Yes?CDI: "Pull it" is when they actually pull it down.Jeff: Oh, well thank you very much for your time.CDI: Ok.Jeff: Bye.CDI: Bye.

(Remember that Controlled Demolitions, Inc was hired to help with the clean up at ground zero.)

pull down 1. To pull down or break up so that reconstruction is impossible: demolish, destroy, dismantle, dynamite, knock down, level, pulverize, raze, tear down, wreck

Again, here's the WTC owner Larry Silverstein's comment about the collapse of the WTC 7:

"I remember getting a call from the, uh, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, 'You know we've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is, is pull it.' Uh, and they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse."

The WTC 7 imploding (notice its penthouse on the top left collapses in half and disappears into the building first):

Reporter: "...that building number 7 was going to collapse.That appears to be what has happened now."

Hats off to Jeff from PumpItOut.com for taking the initiative to call CDI and reaffirming from the demolition experts themselves what the true meaning of the phrase "pull it" means; demolish!

Now put aside for a second that you can't see much of anything in or around the crater that looks like a giant plane had just crashed there (like the lack of a tail section sticking out of the ground) or that the 5,500 gallons of fuel still on the plane didn't scorch the long dry grass growing around right up to the rim of the crater. What else seems odd about this crater is:

Where did all the dirt go???

Flight 93 was a Boeing 757 with a 155ft long fuselage, 124ft wingspan, and should have weighed about 75 tons at least when it supposedly crashed:

►"Figure 7 shows fuel flow and fuel remaining for UAL Flight 93, calculated in the same way as just described for AAL Flight 77.

Based on ACARS transmissions to the airplane, the fuel load on takeoff was 48,700 lb. This results in about 37,500 lb. [17.01 tons / 5,500 gal*] of fuel remaining upon impact (the end of the DFDR data)." -NTSB (02/13/02) [*One pound of jet fuel = 6.84 pounds per gallon.]

So a 155ft long plane weighing 75tons at impact nosedives at 580mph and buries itself underground, leaving a shallow 10ft deep crater, but only ejects out enough dirt to fill back in the 10ft deep crater???

Notice it's fuselage strikes between the 1st and 2nd floors and it's vertical tail (or stabilizer/rudder) extends above the 3rd floor and it's right horizontal stabilizer should have contacted the wall between the 1st and 2nd story windows:

Now here are some different accounts from witnesses as to what happened to the tail section (note that there are no witness reports of any part of the tail section flying over the building when the plane hit):

"The plane seemed to be floating as if it were a paper glider and I watched in horror as it gently rocked and slowly glided straight into the Pentagon. At the point where the fuselage hit the wall, it seemed to simply melt into the building... At that point, the wings disappeared into the Pentagon. And then I saw an explosion and watched the tail of the plane slip into the building." - Smithsonian Institute

"The plane exploded after it hit, the tail came off and it began burning immediately. Within five minutes, police and emergency vehicles began arriving," said Vin Narayanan, a reporter at USA TODAY.com, who was driving near the Pentagon when the plane hit." -USA Today (09/11/01)

A Boeing 757's tail section is huge and should have either left a gash in the wall if it partially entered, or left a very noticeable mark on it if it sheered off and crumpled against it before bouncing off, or from being obliterated into a million pieces from hitting the recently retrofitted wall at a blistering speed of 530 mph. However, you can clearly see that none of that happened:

Also notice there is a piece of column still hanging from the 3rd floor. Columns are usually made of long thin steel rebar incased with concrete, so this piece should have been bent back into the building in the direction the supposed plane crashed in and not dangling as if it were attached by strings:

You can see from this early photo taken before the roof collapsed (which was about 30 mins after the "crash" at about 9:38 am) that there is no large plane debris from a tail section or any other section from a 757:

I have yet to come across any photo or video that shows what looks like debris from a 757's tail section or any photo showing a mark on the Pentagon's facade where the vertical and/or right horizontal tail section smashed up against.

Tail sections usually survive plane crashes since they are usually the last to hit the object the plane crashes into and because it's at the rear of the plane:

If you get into a debate with someone who still believes in the official story that a Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon, just show them that there is no evidence of a 757's tail section hitting the wall and sheering off, or obliterating against it. Also, mention that tail sections from planes do not simply disappear without a trace.

The missing tail section from Flight 77 is the best smoking gun that a Boeing 757 did not crash into the Pentagon.

June 05, 2006

Here is why the govt perps didn't use a Boeing 757 to crash into the Pentagon:

ACCURACY

What do you think would be the easiest part of the Pentagon to hit, the huge rooftop that looks like a giant "bull’s-eye" from the sky, or the side of the Pentagon that is only about seven stories tall? I’d say the roof.

But what if you had to hit the side of the building that is not even 2x taller than a Boeing 757 and not only that, but a certain side, certain section, and certain floor of that side?

The government conspirators needed to hit the exact section of the Pentagon that was hit and they needed to hit it low to the ground. A Boeing 757, even flown via remote control or computer guidance, would have been too risky for them to use because it is too big and cumbersome to chance its accuracy and a plane that size could cause more damage than they wanted too.

Can you imaging them trusting an empty remote controlled 110 ton Boeing to perfectly hit that small section low to the ground without overshooting high and flying over the low sitting Pentagon, or without bouncing off the lawn and breaking apart to expose that no passengers where on board and sending large pieces of the plane in who knows which direction?

If they chose to stage a large plane looking like it dive-bombed into the roof, or flew straight into the uppers floors, they wouldn't have been able to have faked this plane crash because they wouldn't have been able to manufacture a somewhat realistically sized and shaped hole in the roof, or upper floors to make most people think a 757 caused it as compared to floors on the ground and they needed to have the section they hit collapse so it would help cover up the oddly shaped hole they could only easily manufacture for the crash to help cover up the fact that no 757 crashed there.

So think about it, the "Arab terrorists" hit the worst section for them and the best section for the Pentagon.

Motive for Hitting the 'Lucky' Section

So what was so special for our military to take the added risk of hitting that specific section at their defense headquarters when hitting the WTC would surely be enough to cause a wave of world wide indignation for their master plan?

Check out what the head of the Pentagon announced less than 24hrs before his place of work got hit:

On Sept. 10, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld declared war. Not on foreign terrorists, "the adversary's closer to home. It's the Pentagon bureaucracy," he said.

Rumsfeld promised change but the next day – Sept. 11-- the world changed and in the rush to fund the war on terrorism, the war on waste seems to have been forgotten.

Now I don’t know about you, but if I had to announce a bureaucratic nightmare that I wanted to be buried as quickly as possible from the minds of the American people, what better time to announce it than the day before every American’s mind will be distracted by a most horrible event?

So now we know why Rumsfeld announced this outrageous news the day before the attacks, but they needed to do a little more than to just bury the story, they needed to bury the evidence and what better way to bury the evidence than to blow up the section that housed the paper trail and people trail who might have been able to figure out where all or some of that missing $2.3 trillion went:

Now think about it, less than 24hrs after Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld (who was on the safe side of the Pentagon when it was hit) announces his agency lost track of a mind-blowing $2.3 trillion dollars, the section that housed the people and paper trail that would know where all that money went was blown up in the most bizarre events in America's history.